Talk:Trust (emotion)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Trust (social sciences))
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Sociology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

"the trustor (voluntarily or forcedly) abandons control . . ."[edit]

Earlier, the article said that the trustor was 'willing to rely on the actions' of another. The phrase above, in the use of "forcedly" abandoning control, seems to contradict that. Can the original author clarify this paradox between willingness and force in relinquishing control? Danafr3 (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

There aren't any paradoxes. It's the limitations of language that make it seem so.
Let's say my girlfriend and I are dealing with someone, there's a dispute, and my girlfriend had a really bad day and starts getting very emotionally hostile and it's obviously escalating. I would assertively say "stop, I'll handle this" and she'd chill out while I take care of the situation. She didn't "willfully" stop, it was emotional force that did it PLUS the trust that she could rely on my actions to result in a favorable outcome. In other words, without trust she would have gone right back into battle with the person.
This could happen on a physical level of force as well. Let's say my girlfriend and I are dealing with her house bursting into flames and she's freaking out and going in a mad rush for the house to rescue her cat. I could grab ahold of her and say that I'm going to take care of rescuing the cat and she's going to call 911.
In both cases I used force to interrupt her and take control of the situation.
-- That Guy, From That Show! 03:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

still growing[edit]

I am still growing and learning as a human being. This week I learned that trust is not earned. No. It is a gift. What the recipient chooses to do with it determines the relationship's destiny. Of course, even if "betrayed," the giver can continue to give. I also learned that when devious minds are at work, nothing can possibly be what it seems and only trust and faith can bring you through a trying situation. Stay calm, take deep breaths...and think it through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.130.167 (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


Arguement against trust[edit]

I feel that there must be information put into the main page about the arguements agianst using trust. It is on the basis that everyone has the slightest potential at least to abuse other people's trust. Though we can allow people to have some responsibilities, we can do without ever trusting them for sure. So many times we have our trust abused and the least likily trust abuse cases still come true. This life keeps showing us that we should highten our gaurd further still. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.180.109 (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The article as it is isn't an argument for trust, it's a description of what trust is. It's a psychological phenomenon, not a value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.111.99 (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the caudate nucleus the brain's "trust center"?[edit]

Something for an enterprising Wikipedian to research and include: [1] deeceevoice 10:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Trust sociology or also Economics / Social Psychology[edit]

In this page trust is introduced as a sociological construct. However, about as much attention is given to trust in Social Psychology and economics. Is the title 'Trust (Social Sciences)' not a better reflection. This may also assist developing this from a stub as then we can add economics and pscyhology stub tags. Also we can then include description from those fields in more detail E.g. in social psych / soc cognition trust is considered a shortcut/heuristic to reduce information processing (i.e. take up advies of trusted source), furthermore much research as been conducted determinants of trust. One is to be trusted if the source of information is competent, has the same values as you etc. In psychology Siegrist, Slovic, Pidgeon, Trumob, Frewer and many others have ventured into trust. I think from sociology a reference to Luhman is lacking. I might reserve some time for adding such stuff, but anyone beating me to it is welcome Arnoutf 13:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

ranking scale[edit]

probably shouldnt be top priority - 19:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Trust[edit]

Never trust anyone, not even yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.2.0 (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's not be getting all emotional, flaky, and existential, now. 24.149.28.230 (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This reference is wrong (7): However, rational reflection leads to the rejection of an ability to trust technological artefacts.[7] (7) has nothing to do with this. Correct reference should be [8] or [9] with Luhmann. Also, "artifact" may be a more conventional spelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.40.102 (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Grammatical error[edit]

Grammatical error regarding trustworthhiness inverts the context. Quote from article: "There are three different forms of trust. Trust is being vulnerable to someone even though they are trustworthy; Trustworthiness is the ability to trust, and trust propensity being able to rely on them Relationship and Risk taking."

'Trustworthiness is the ability to trust' - implies trustworthiness is a property of the person who is trusting, it should instead be phrased as:

Grammatical correction REQUIRED: 'Trustworthiness is the ability to be trusted' - shifting the subject to the trusted party, except that this isn't what trustworthiness means, instead try this:

Correction of definition SUGGESTED: 'Trustworthiness is the reliability of the person to be trusted' 76.103.47.11 (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Gharveyn, aka greg.gourdian@gmail.com

economics section[edit]

Hi all, I think recent additions have balanced the article towards the 3 main disciplines investigating trust (Economics, Sociology, Psychology).

I think the economics section currently is not very reader friendly and uses jargon like the abbreviations and sentence construction below:

formed randomly into dyads and assigned the role of decision-maker 1 (DM1) or decision-maker 2 (DM2). DM1 is asked to decide what amount of money to transfer to DM2. This money is removed from DM1's account and, typically, tripled in DM2's account. The DM1 to DM2 transfer is thought to measure trust. DM2 is then told of the transfer and is given the opportunity to return some, all, or none of the largess to DM1. The DM2 to DM1 transfer measured trustworthiness

While apparently interesting this is not very easy to read. I notice this kind of abstraction in many scientific publications by economists so it is probably scientifically sensical to talk like this, but since Wikipedia is aimed at the larger interested public we should try to make it more accessible.
Can someone who knows what this is about try to make a first go, otherwise I might have a try and mix up the subtleties (me being a psychologist, not an economist). Arnoutf (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added banners for you.--Penbat (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Use on non-econ-specific footnote citations in Economics section[edit]

I believe that the use of citations from non-economics journals (like Computational Intelligence), game-theory publications (as distinct from econ & game theory), and writers (even the estimable sociologist Anthony Giddens) might be good enough if nothing else is available. But there are plenty of references by economists and in economics journals that could & arguably should be used in the Econ section (preferably with links allowing readers to follow up on their own). Such references would add credibility to the section. May future editors be wp:bold (and of course careful) in continuing to improve this aspect of the section. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is propaganda[edit]

Wikipedia is completely biased, one-sided propaganda, yet many useful edits are removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.238.155.73 (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I sense a lack of trust in Wikipedia here, is that the reason you used this specific talk page? Arnoutf (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Much of the section about psychological research on trust is extremely poor. Out of the four bullet points in the section, only one of them is a reference to a peer reviewed journal (the fourth bullet point). The information theory book (bullet point 3) referenced might be somewhat valid, but it looks like, from the other link to an online article by the author, that it's really more about information security. The top bullet pointed book mentioned might be based on research, but is not really a valid reference since it's not peer reviewed. The second bullet point mentions a self-help book!

The writing for much of the entire section is poor, as awkward sentences like "Interestingly much research has been performed on trust" abound. Paragraphs with solid peer-reviewed references are interspersed with single-line, one-off comments referencing pop business books. The single sentence on sexual victimization references pop psychology, and is then followed with two loosely related sentences that do at least contain a valid reference (reference #42, but who's counting!) yet someone saw fit to throw in the "citation needed" editing term on the first sentence, despite it being an obvious lead-in to the second one. There does not seem to be any sort of organization to the section at all, really. There are some seemingly useful, well-referenced paragraphs, but the content is so uneven that it's sometimes hard to find them, or separate the good from the bad.

I won't even start on the economics section, since it seems to assume that readers have a degree in the field, with statements like, "trust can provide an explanation of a difference between Nash equilibrium and Pareto optimum."

For such a broad, yet important, concept, this page really needs some serious editing. My comment will probably be deleted by the oh-so-helpful admins, but whatever. I just wanted to speak my piece. With content like this, it's no wonder that experts don't take this site seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.56.139 (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Trustworthiness to Trust (social sciences)[edit]

I propose that Trustworthiness be merged into Trust (social sciences). The content of the much shorter Trustworthiness article can easily be merged into this article without losing any content; the two concepts overlap significantly in that trustworthiness is simply to be deserving of trust. Seeing as the Trustworthiness article has not been significantly expanded upon since its creation in 2006, it may be that it can't be, especially without considerable overlap with the Trust article. DiscantX (talk) 07:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Support - I agree with the above. That being said, it may be that in years to come we see a 'Trust (ethics)' article branch off in much the same way as we now have a separate article for Altruism (ethics). Cheers Andrew (talk) 12:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I support the relationship between Trust and being trustworthy is a key one — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveTMcds (talkcontribs) 11:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: It's probably safe to merge at this point but I've posted notices at the related WikiProjects in case anyone else is intersted.  DiscantX 21:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Trust (social sciences). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Adding content and Sources to the sociology Part[edit]

I just post my ideas but I am not going to write it exaclty like that, It is just the first draft.

  • Outlet

As said if the article trust is a social phenomenon. Because it does not exist outside of our vision of the other. This image can be real or imaginary but it is this one which permits the creation of the Trust.

This trust is possible because of our expectations. These expectations are created thanks to the legitimacy to trust people in the society ( it is a norm that the individual needs to trust the others in his quotidian) and also because the social position of the other help to trust him if he follows the social norm of the society is correspondence with his position in the society. So, the trust is in perpetual construction.

This construction of the trust permits to establish and develop the relationships between the individuals. These new relationships develop until the self discolure if they two individuals stay in this relationship of mutual trust.

The trust as four major component that I want to detail more in the article : the orientation, the act of power, the temporal and a direct connection with the two part of the Self ( Me/ You).

- Experiment of Garfinkel: exp 1 ( ask student to do whatever they want at home + reaction family) ; exp 2(systematicly students say that they do not trust their friends when they say something or act + their reaction, they are made, hangry and hate their friends after that). It shows the difficulty to perpetrate an absence of trust in the moral social order.

- Necessary for economic transaction ( Fred Hirsch: "Public Good") and essential for stable relationships (Peter Blau).

- trust = expectation of regularity, order in the routine, the moral world, every life.

- Trust permits a social control, for example for the power.

- Trust is not established in the same way and does not have the same boundaries in function of the relationship : friends, family, business, public and politic. Trust is based on a system of limits because there are boundaries to the things and people we can trust.

- It is difficult to obtain trust because of the lack in the memory, the confidentiality, the knowledge and the importance of the TIME.

- Vladimir Ilych Lenine expresses this idea of uncertainity of trust with the sentence “Trust is good, control is better”, “Vertraun ist gust, Kontrol noch besser”.

- Trust is based on the self-regulating and the individual responsibility to make the effort to assume the duty that we have by being trusted.

- There is a crisis of trust because of the omnipresence of the social network in our society. In fact, there are a lot of low-quality information and even false or rumors. It creates a lack of confidence in our close social environment. The world connection creates a cascading failure dynamic which raise the probability for the other users to also have bad information and start to be concern by this lack of trust. Allerlesverts (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allerlesverts (talkcontribs) 01:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC) 
  • Sources
Bernard Barber, The Logic And Limits Of Trust, ( Rutgers University Press, New Jersy, 1983)
Linda R. Weber, Allison I. Carter, The Social Construction of Trust ( Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers, New York, 2003)

Toshio Yamagishi, Trust: The Evolutionary Game Of Mind and Society, (University Of Tokyo Press, 1998)

Allerlesverts (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC) Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

- Karen S. Cook, Trust in Society, Russell Sage Foundation, New York 2001.

- Sinclair, Development and validation of the Emotional Intimacy Scale, ISSN : 1061-3749, Vol 13.

- Mcallister, Shelece, Thornock, Carly, Hammond, Jeffrey, Holmes, Errin, Hill: The influence of Couple Emotional Intimacy on Job Perceptions and Work-Family conflicts, Family and consumer Sciences Research Journal June 2012, Vol 40.

- Jurkane-Hobein, Iveta; Imagining the Absent Partner: Intimacy and Imagination in Long-distance relationships, Journal: Innovative Issues and appraoches in social sciences, vol 8.

- Adam B. Seligman, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Trust and Sociability: On the limits of Confidence and Role Expectations, 1998.

- Chengqi Yi, Yuanyuan Bao, Elsevier (journal), Modeling cascading failures with the crisis of trust in Social Networks, 2015. Allerlesverts (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC) Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Update, March 31, 2016[edit]

You've done a great job here as well, Alexis. The previous comments about style still hold for this page as well. You do not have to have subordinate clauses like "When it comes to trust, sociology..." or "So-and-so says..." You can just state the fact and make sure to cite the source.

In addition to all of the previous comments that I placed on the emotional intimacy page, you must make sure that some of the words that you used in your text will link back to the Wikipedia articles that go with them. So make sure, for instance, that if you do talk about Giddens, link his name to his Wikipedia article.

You've done an amazing job. @Allerlesverts: Alfgarciamora (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)